tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC March 15, 2019 12:00am-1:00am PDT
tonight on "all in." >> doesn't matter. i'll probably have to veto and it's not going to be overturned. >> reporter: the president rebuked by the senate. 12 members of his own party 96ing his emergency member. >> the president can't over rule the decision of congress without becoming the ultimate power. >> and force under to his first ever veto. >> i think it's a great election issue. anything else? >> then as roger stone heads back to court new indications the mueller probe is nearing an end. plus >> i have never intentionally misled congress.
>> wilbur ross hauled before cong troosz explain why he lied about the census. >> you have already done great harm and you have zero credibility and you should, in my opinion, resign. >> and a new contender for 2020. >> i'm running to serve youz as president of the united states of america. >> what beto o'rourke's candidacy means for the democratic primary when "all in" starts right now. good evening from new york. today marks yet another low point for the trump presidency. it's fair to say trump has never had less legislative power than after his national emergency declaration was swatted down boy a republican-controlled senate. the senate voted by a large margin, 59-41 to overturn the president's declaration of emergency despite very strenuous
lobbying and tons of pressure from his minions. here was fox business's lou dobs putting the screws to descending republicans. >> i will tell you straight up i think every senator who votes against this should absolutely be removed from office. i think the rnc should work to get rid of them. because they're standing in the way of a president who is the most successful since fdr. >> since fdr? that message did work on a few people, amazingly enough. like tom tillis across the pages of the "washington post," about how this was an easy vote against principal. after rumors, tucked his tail between his legs and supported the president. and cory gardner up for reelection in a state where trump's approval rating is a
nice negative 12 who decided his best move was to vote for the president. and fashions himself a conservative individual first and a conservative second. i think 24 national emergencies act is overly broad and i want to fix it, but nancy pelosi doesn't. therefore i'm voting against her resolution. one senator who predicted the back lash was john cornyn. >> i think it's a dachgress step, one was because of the precedent it sets. and two, the president will get sued and it won't succeed in accomplishing his goal. and third because i think ms. pelosi may well introduce her resolution of disapproval that will pass the house come over here and divide republicans. to me it strikes me as not a good strategy.
yes. many times. publicly and privately. >> nailed it, big john. today john cornyn voted -- wait for it. in support of the national emergency along with the white house. 12 republicans voted against president trump action and now he'll be forced to issue his first veto or veto all caps, exclamation point as the president wrote today. and once it clears the houses, will be the first ever to get to the president's desk. froors withdraw american forces from their support of the saudi war in yemen. and earlier today in the house there was a rare unanimous vote, though it was not binding. 420-0 to make the mueller report public. just a reminder of the constant cloud that hangs over the white house.
senator, i was following this closely and my understanding from the reporting and people on the hill was the white house went all out to try to prevent this from happening today. was that your understanding too? >> yes and apparently it worked on senator tillis who went really farer to write an op-ed saying how bad this was for the president to declare his fake emergency and turned around and voted against the termination. i think the president has his number. >> what does it make you think when you see colleagues like tom tillis say that or lindsey graham, who in other conditions has been pretty zealous about guarding the constitutional authority? >> i would like them to be true to the feelings and the positions that they express.
and when it comes time vote, do what they're spozed to be doing and act like they are part of a separate branch of government. the 12 senators that did that, kudos to them. i hope it's not just a one off. i've been talking a lot about how the congress should be acting like a separate branch of government and not waiting around for the president to tell us what to do we know he changes his mind on a whim. >> mitch mcconnell couldn't control this because it's a resolution that has to be brought up. so senate had to consider it. i wonder how many other things that would get this many defections if mcconnell allowed them to the floor? >> probably something that we tried to get unanimous consent on once again to make sure the mueller investigation comes to a completion without any kind of interference.
so chuck schumer brought that to the floor and mcconnell blocked that. the house voted unanimously to pass a nonbinding, but nevertheless a big mesening to the president and attorney general barr that the mueller report should be made public. >> and that would pass in your house of congress, the senate were it be allowed to vote but mcconnell won't allow it to go to vote. >> 800,000 federal employees. if mcconnell had brought that, that would have passed in the senate. i am pretty sure. >> there's another question hire, which is for years people have been saying why won't republicans break with trump? and i've said i don't think they will. they understand that their fats are tied in some deep sense. two days in a row, genuine
rebukes, the president. small. it's a minority of the caucus. but majority is voting against the president two days in a row on fairly signature issues. is this the start of something new or a blip? >> i'd hate for it to be a blip because that just means the republicansed in both the house and senate are go took stick their heads in the sand and support this president no matter what. just today he said something real ea dangerous in my view. something about he has lots of friends, biker friends, etc. that can hurt liberals. what is that? except a strong message inducing people to hurt others. this isn't the type of language the president of the united states should be employing. words matter. >> he's talking to a right-wing publication. he says i actually think the people on the right are tougher but they don't play it tougher. i can tell you i have the support of the police, bikers
for trump, military. i have the tough people but they don't play it tough until they go to a certain point and then it would be very bad, very bad. you see that as implicit threat of violence? >> it seems very much to me that he's encouraging them to engage in something that's illegal like assaulting people. that sounds like a threat to me. i think it's appalling. >> thank you very much as always. for taking time. joining me now politics reporter of the "daily beast." and staff reporter at "the atlantic." go check out that piece. i want to come back around to the president's talk about his tough supporters, which i think comes from place of weakness. i want tastart with you on this roll call i find fascinating. these republican no votes,
there's some people you expect -- susan collins, for instance, lisa murkowski, rand paul. but there's a lot of these folks like jerry moran and alexander who generally vote for the president who i think are basically voting their conscience on this. >> i think that's right. and what's interesting is we know republicans or care to purport to care deeply about separation of powers and congressional restraint on the executive and the reason we know is something very comparable, not identical happened when president obama took steps on immigration that went further legally than prior presidents have. the use the theory of executive power that was a bit new and different. and republicans called obama the imperial president. they suggested he was undermining the entire constitutional order.
they sued to roll back those steps obama took to roll back the deportation in the united states. what we saw today is some republicans persist in that same line of thinking. what i thought was really surprising and significant is the fact that ted cruz who presents himself as a constitutional expert, as somebody who cares about the rule of law and separation of powers and constraints on the executive voted with trump on this resolution. voted basically to let the president expand his or her ability and decide how taxpayer money gets spent without sign off from capitol hill. the fact cruz broke with what we can almost certainly guarantee would have been his position if a democrat had been in power. >> and i think tillis/gardner votes are significance for the politics of the moment. he is a weak president and has
been a weak president with a predator naturally strong hold on members of his party. and tillis basically e his own column in front of everyone. it's ultimate humiliation. >> well, look, trump has a grip on the base. they don't want oo be primaried. what you have is a chamber dominated by the self-style defenders of small government and individual liberty. most of whom showed what they really believe in trump. and i think that's an important question that was answered by today 's votes. and the republicans who stuck to their guns are deserving of praise but they're the minority in caucus. >> they're not unrelated. the president has two big legislative setbacks in consecutive days. it's unclear that anything that
gets done in the next year 1/2 legislatively, the president says this thing about his people being tough. if they go to certain point, it would be very bad, very bad. how do you interpret that? >> the president ran on vows to uses state violence when he was running for president in 2016. so it's not really surprising to me that he would openly fantasize about political violence against his opponents. because there's an element of his base that revels in that kind of fantasy violence and in some cases has acted on it. it wasn't that long ago that a whole bunch of the president's critics receive bombs in the mail from crazed trump fan. it's dangerous talk bought big segment of his base really enjoys. it fulfills something for them.
>> the white house could have said look, we're going to loouz this vote and they don't have the votes to override. they invested tremendous capital, mike pence, working everyone over and it totally failed. it's striking to me they were not able to bring this home. >> and part of the reason undoubtly that they cared so much is they knew ultimately it's up to the courts to decide whether or not the president can essentially rewrite certain components of the pentagon budget. if they'd buy been a ibl to point at congress when they're in court arguing to defend what trump is doing and say look, constitutional scholars like the republicans in the senate agree with us and this is a partisan effort to keep the president from exercising his lawful authority, that would have been a useful argument that federal judges would have listened to.
not necessarily a game changer. but now instead a dozen republicans and a handful in the house saying this isn't how federal law works. and that's something that in congress litigators are charging the president is breaking a law by seizing this money without it authorization is something they're going to point to. >> my genroom feeling is they understand their fates are tied to trump and i don't think they're wrong. it is striking we've had these two days in a row where he's had big losses. do you see any pivot point here? >> i think we need more data points before we start to look at whether or not he's in danger of losing enough support from republicans in the senate, that
he would actually be in some kind of danger. the other thing is when this goes to the federal courts, i know a lot of people are saying this is an easy slam dunk case. but the truth is lawyers excel at writing exceptions into rules in a way that might prevent -- if the supreme court wants to accept this in a way that's going to prevent a democratic president, they're going to do it. i wouldn't count on the idea the courts are going to slap down. >> equal protection argument in the holding only applied to that case and no future cases, which is really something. >> single serving. >> thank you for your time. next beto o'rourke is running for president. what his candidacy does to the crowded field.
a business owner always goes beyond what people expect. that's why we built the nation's largest gig-speed network along with complete reliability. then went beyond. beyond clumsy dials-in's and pins. to one-touch conference calls. beyond traditional tv. to tv on any device. beyond low-res surveillance video. to crystal clear hd video monitoring from anywhere. gig-fueled apps that exceed expectations. comcast business. beyond fast.
this setting right now the very first event of our campaign for president is an example of not only how i wish to campaign across it this country for every single american and i could care less your party persuasion, your religion, other than we're all americans, human beings and we do everything for one another and for every generation that follows. this is democracy. >> former el paso congressman, beto o'rourke is officially running for president. he announced in a video with his wife, amy, which coincided with a vanity fair cover photo and iowa where he had his first speech in a coffee shop. challenging senator ted cruz last year in texas, he raised more than $70 million, which is a shocking number and out performed any state wide democrat in texas in two
decades. losing by less than three points a race nobody thought he had a shot at. he's been road tripping and blogging as he tries to figure out his next move. now that he's part of the largest democratic field ever, and not a single policy position on his campaign website. to talk about his candidacy and what it means to the 2020 field, i'm joined by correspondent to the nation. what does this do to the field you think? >> it's another democrat in the field. i mean as i've said to you before in the past few weeks, we have to be really honest. there are some democrats that want a straight white male at the top of the ticket and this is why we keep hearing about beto and biden and bernie and before it was bloomberg. there are divisions within the
party that are deeper than just progressive verses centric lines. but this is a man that a lot of people want to re-create 2008, which would be a mistake because we're in 2018. in one of the greatest crisis of the if century, he's on walk about driving around the country finding himself, much like he did in his 20s. i'm sure he has time to get there. he's shown no real grav toss, honestly with the sort of severity of the moment we're in, in 2019. there's much to do about nothing until i see real policy positions. >> you wrote a piece saying run beto o, run. and you said that about stacey abrams and other people who can are considering. >> my thinking is the democratic field isn't too big. and i'm troubled by the
democrats who say it's getting so crowded. there's no space for anyone else, as if announcing early settles things and if you didn't announce in the first weeks of 2019 you can't run. what i'm arguing is that i think it's exciting that field is expanding and i think it's good. stacey abrams indicated this week that she's rethinking. she's taking herself out of the running, suggesting she might make the race. i think her addition would be electric and important. there's some talk of andrew gillm thinking about it as well. he's going to make an announcement march 20th. i think that's an expression of the sense this race could use more people and with beto o'rourke, obviously he got in today. i think he has to do a much better job of defining himself and saying why he's there and
quote on quote needed in this race. but somebody that covered the texas race in 2018, i was powerfully struck by many of the innovations he brought to our politics. i think keep an eye on him because my sense is what he would bring to this race is, hopefully, policy stances, which are much clearer and a different way of campaigning. and i think people are open to that. >> that campaign was a remarkably built machine to fund raising and the miles covered. as to the sort of policies, i thought thissancer to the question of medicare for all he got on the first day trail was interesting. listen to what he had to say. >> medicare for all is championed by some of your new competitors. you get asked about it. how quickly are you -- >> i'm convinced that we will
have to work from as much common ground as possible. no one person and perhaps no one party can force the decision on this. this has to be something that america comes together on. >> you know, one level that's a very evasive answer. he does not take a position. but one of the things i have noticed and you referenced 2008, there is a constituency of voters, particularly in the era of trump and they felt this way after bush, talk of coming together and consensus. that is a powerful message among democratic primary voters. it has in the past. >> oh, indeed. here's the thing, chris. we need someone who understands not just the candidate phase but the governance phase as well and i'm not sold on that.
the answers i've heard this far are middle of the road which not every democrat is a progressive. i think there's space definitely for stacey abrams because we have a myriad of divisions in the party which hopefully someone can join the democrats from across the country. however, when you really listen to what he is saying, he's saying a series of nouns and verbs but no policy positions. that was a statement that honestly anyone could have made, not a three-term congressman thinking about the presidency. yes, it is early. however, he's had several months to really sharpen some of these ideas. i'm a little surprised that so many journalists and podcast folks are super excited when there are so many other, i would argue, qualify individuals who yet to jump in for a host of reasons.
>> in the plitcome sense, not in terms of the substance sense. is whether the fund raising machine he built in the texas campaign, which is the most remarkable fund raising machine anyone has else built ever. a big thing that's going to determine how long people can stay in and how deep they go is whether they have that kind of fund raising base. >> the answer to your question is no. i don't want to pop anybody's balloon. but a substantial portion of the success of that fund raising in 2018 was the fact he was running against ted cruz and there are an awful lot of people in america who want ted cruz out of the senate in whatever way possible, including a lot of republicans.
so the notion he's going to re-create that fund raising, i'm dubious about. and with answers like the medicare for all answer, eno, that wasn't very inspiring. i'll note one thing that's significant. i think it was the same interview, he was asked about death penalty and came out very strong and clear in absolute opposition. so we'll see. he does have to take clear stands. if he does, it will help a lot. but the important thing to understand is that the fund raising thing will be different this time. what i think was more significant about the o'rourke campaign in 2018 was the decentralizing campaign. i think that was underemphasized, whereas the -- >> i should note that kamala harris called for a death penalty moratorium as well.
i will be hosting msnbc's very first candidate town hall in the battleground state. kristen jill brand will be making her case in a crowded field. we're taping it in michigan with a live audience. you can find full details on our website, all in.msnbc.com. ahead one of mueller's top investigation next nearly cvs pharmacy.
nearly three months ago the news organization reported the mueller report could come as early as midfebruary. that didn't happen. then reports that it could land late february. now it's been march. no report yet. what we have is an actual confirmed piece of news it could be wrapping up. the quote architect of the campaign chairman, manafort is stepping down. what does that mean? here with me to help answer the questions. a former assistant director for counterintelligence at the fbi. frank, what do you make of the news of weiszman's departure? >> so i think when we look at conformation weiszman's moving along, combine it with news we
just heard that a lead counterintelligence executive, david archie is headed to richmond to lead the richmond fbi field office, those moves coupled with all the departures we've known about the last couple of months does signal this is about to wrap up. we're all left to figure out. but i will tell you i'm even more intrigued by david archie because he's the counterintelligence lead. that's the seminal russia question that mueller was spoetzed to answer and now we see him about to move off to the field. what i think it means is we should all expect a eare port that's not so dramatic but rather one that rolls out and spins off cases everywhere. it's real ea about what mueller thinks and his philosophy of the system and let the system take care of issues and believing our
justice system can do this. and secondly it defuses targets for trump to aim at. so now trump's been saying tlsz rar deep state. it's mueller. it's a witch hunt. now if all of this gets farmed out, noahe's got to attack the manhattan d.a., the southern district of new york, edda and now everybody's on a witch hunt and everybody pafs deep state and i think that's part of the strategy. >> i've seen people who have written about the idea of if there are further cases -- there's the u.s. v roger stone. and presumably someone's going to carry through the prosecution, whether on his team or someone else. it's rick gates who's not had his final sentencing, nor has mike flynn.
and then the actual indictments of the russians. your sense is this will be a baton passing at some point? >> indeed. i think it's a deliberate strategy that matches what i know about mueller and how he operates. he's very aware that he'll be testifying on the hill about how much money his team spent over the years. if you ask what are you doing and you say i've got nothing going on sir, it's time for you to move on. he's cleaning out house. see cases in a variety of cases and now have trump deal with all of these people investigating. >> final question there's a lot of back and forth about what this report is if it exists what it will look like, how deep it will be, whether it will be made
public at all or immediately. as someone who worked for the man for many years, there's some sort of statutory guidance here inside the office, department of justice. what is your sense? >> i think mueller is not a huge fan of going up to the hill and testifying for days on end and i think he knows he's in for that, particularly for the seminal question of russian conspiracy. so we're going to see the russian conspiracy question dealt with. i don't doubt that at all. obstruction, fraud, etc., i think we're going to see references and near references. this is going here and maybe not much more than that. keep your eye on the house and senate intelligence committees because they have a right to say you're working a counterintelligence case and you must report significant developments to us. so i think there will be transparency on the hill to a cia briefing.
to hone those hypocrites. is it just me or is everyone with in hollywood strangely silent? great stuff. just one thing. it appears don jr. and ivanka may have got a whole lot of help from their famous dad. frrbsz donald trump was a target of the school's fund raising efforts dating back to the 1980s. an honor partially designed to inspire donations. don jr. was during his freshman year that trump made his first donation of over $100,000. ivanka then enrolled, at which time the checks were rolling in. he may have donated $1.4 million to penn. >> we know those people. we did grow up to people who donated wings to warden. he couldn't buy our way in, even
if he wanted to. >> what's 17 times 6? come on. >> come o you need a calculator? >> 94. >> wrong. >> ivanka. >> it is 1112. 112. >> wrong. >> now let me just tell you that clip went on for a while and the answer for the record is two. they're not the first generation of trumps who got to depend entirely on their merit. termites, feasting on homes 24/7.
we're on the move. roger. hey rick, all good? oh yeah, we're good. we're good. termites never stop trying to get in, we never stop working to keep them out. terminix. defenders of home. don jr. and ivanka are not only ones who may not pea entirely unrelated to the generosity. jared was accepted to harvard after his father pledged money
to the university. and trump was admitted to wharton on a special favor. numerous class mates have described trump as a mediocre student which may explain why he later ordered fixer, con to keep his transcripts remain hidden. >> i'm talking about a man who declared himself brilliant but directed me to threaten high schools and college board to never release his grades or sat scores. >> but just because trump may have got help getting into whatten, does not mean he's not smart. >> people don't understand. i went to an ivy league college. i was a nice student. i did very well. i'm a very intelligent person. (danny) let me get this straight.
mr. secretary, you lied to cong rrksz misled the american people and you are complicit in the trump administration's intent to suppress the growing political power of the nonwhite population. you have already done great harm in 2020 and you have zero credibility and you should, in my opinion, resign. >> since its early days, the trump administration has been trying to rig the 2020 census to consolidate republican power. and today the man whose running point on that plan commerce secretary wilbur ross came beor the democrat house to talk about
his own tracks in the endeavor. the trump administration talks about its decision to add a citizenship question, one that critics warn will depress response rates, making data less accurate and giving the communities fewer federal funds and fewer lec torl votes. the supreme court is due to hear a challenge next month. and testified repeated lathe only reason they did was to enforces the voting rights act. >> solely to the democrat of justice's request. >> the department of justice, as you know long before the justice department got involved, steve bannon was pushing the citizen ship question with voter fraud question, former kansas
secretary of state and in his memo, ross said he's the one that reached out to the justice department. not the other way around. i began considering fundamental issues regarding the upcoming 2020 census. my staff and i consulted with federal government components and inquired whether the department of justice would support and if so would request inclusion of the citizenship question. i got them to ask me, since then, two federal courts have ruled against the trump administration on the citizen ship question finding that officials sought a phony pretext for adding it and ross specifically broke federal law and the latest ruling issued last week, the judge found the citizen poses a significant risk of distorting the congressional representation among the states
joined by one of the people that questioned wilber ross, as well as thomas signs, the mexican american legal defense suing the trump administration. congressman, did you learn anything new, did you get an admission? >> no apology, chris and continued deception. sounds like he contradicted documents filed in court. we know he consulted with steve
bannon, that he headed idea the census question political questions and direction of the white house and just flatly denied that and continued to have the pretext that this was something that the justice department was asking him to do in the face of documents showing the exact opposite. >> so he lied to you. i mean, i guess my question is are you -- there is all this talk of republicans in the oversight committee to refer cohen because of what he said to the committee and a criminal referral. what do you do with wilber ross. >> he blatantly lied, he was asked point blank a few months ago, did you ever consult with anyone at the white house about the census question? he said no, i did not. there is an admission that he actually talked to steve bannon precisely about this question. this isn't a gray area. he lied before. he continues to lie and it's just as if this administration is shameless about it.
>> so thomas, tell me what your lawsuit's theory of the case is when you say he's engaged in a conspiracy to deprive people of rights. >> it's what we know that he consulted with the white house and chris and in the justice department over the course of almost the entire year of 2017 in order to concoct a reason to add the citizen ship question to census 2020. >> and your understanding of the intent to that is what? >> the intent is to get an under count and ensure the growing power of the latino community in particular is curbed through ensuring that the census is inaccurate, which is a harm to the entire country. wilber politicized the census for the first time in history and lying about it and this guy belongs in no cabinet whatsoever. he should be retired. >> him saying lying. two federal courts found this.
the district in california shows secretary ross decided to add the question and his reason for doing so is not improve the enforcement of the voting rights act and this purpose was a pretext. what can congress do about this before the supreme court, the deadline is approaching, what happens now? >> well, we're going to file briefly for the supreme court on behalf of congress documenting his lies and documenting that he did consult with steve bannon and the white house. you know, at least jim jordan of the committee is honest that he just wants to count citizens. what is so dishonest about ross is he's not admitting the real motive. that's that the white house doesn't want all people counted, which the constitution requires. it's a nationalist agenda that is contrary to the contusion. we'll file a brief with the supreme court and refer him to lying to congress but that's the justice department that gets to determine whether to prosecute him. >> thomas, what are the stakes
here? i think people hear this and think the question is on or not, how big a difference could it possibly make? >> it can make a big difference. which states get more representation. it will determine over the course of a decade how federal funding is distributed and used in states to determine funding and used by private corporations to determine how they will spend their resources as well. the census is the most important task assigned to our federal government from its very beginning through the constitution and this is the very first time seen it under wilber ross. >> thomas, do you have confidence. there is fear they are looking for a reason to give administration its way. >> i do have confidence. the majority of justices understand how the census is and should never have been politicized and the way this
administration has gone about lying to the public has to be something in the sanction. and that sanction should be removing the question that threatens to make census 2020 a sham. if you come back with data that will hunt us. i do have faith in the supreme court. >> yeah, votes representations of billions of dollars all on the line and congressman and thomas, thank you gentlemen both. that is "all in" for this evening. "the rachel maddow show" starts now. good evening, rachel. >> good evening. chris. thanks to you at home for joining us. we start tonight actually with some breaking news out of a federal court case in florida. you will remember that between the 2016 presidential election and the subsequent inauguration of donald trump, in january of 2017 the news organization buzz feed published this document which soon came to be known as the steel dossier, the christopher steele dossier, this is a document at the time some
reporters had seen or at least seen parts of it and parts of this document or perhaps all of it was handed over to the fbi and state department. this document had been briefed at least in part to the incoming president. remember that dramatic scene in the book where he talks about going one on one and briefing president elect donald trump on the content and the nature and most importantly, the existence of this dossier, which was starting to circulate. so it was around in various circumstances but buzz feed was the first to make it available and published it online in january 2017 and to put it mildly, their publication of that dossier exploded like a freaking fire ball, right? i mean, it had, you will recall, this awkward and still difficult to talk about front page presentation that president elect donald trump engaged in